If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(The Raw Story)   In an attempt to satisfy America's blood lust, two states propose death by firing squad because it's "cost effective". Pay Per View rights still to be determined   (rawstory.com) divider line 569
    More: Scary, executed by firing squad, Missouri, lethal injection, gas chambers  
•       •       •

7607 clicks; posted to Main » on 17 Jan 2014 at 9:28 PM (27 weeks ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



569 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | » | Last | Show all
 
2014-01-17 11:17:09 PM

limeyfellow: doglover: What's wrong with firing squads?

Personally, if I had to choose, I'd pick firing squad over lethal injection. And above either of those, I'd go for decapitation by sword. Sure it's a bit messier for the custodial staff, but who cares about them? They can just hose it all off now. This isn't the middle ages. We have plumbing.

Generally it for the family and witnesses. The condemned is pretty much paralysed so they can't move while the chemicals burn out their veins so it is considered a humane for them to watch.

Basically they are a bunch of pussies who want to see the execution but can't stand the good old days of blood splattering everywhere.


That's what I would like to change. Go back to the old ways. Make executions public affairs - put them on TV.
Let the public see what is really on the end of that long media spoon. I think they'd benefit from it.
 
2014-01-17 11:17:11 PM
I see you have no response TheWhoppah, you're either a coward or refuse to accept that innocent people have been executed.
 
2014-01-17 11:17:24 PM
These guys must not watch much TV. Firing squads never seem to get it right.


"Ready, aim..."

"Wait a minute! Wait a minute! Stop the execution!"



img74.imageshack.us

 
2014-01-17 11:17:24 PM
I don't have a problem with the death penalty, per se. But I do have a problem with the system, because the prosecution's incentive is a conviction, not to seek the truth, and death is final.  I'm not willing to put single person to death without 150% assurance that they are guilty.  Anyone who is will to crack a few eggs to make that omelet needs to volunteer themselves to be put to death to show all of us that it's worth it.

I like the solution they had in the movie "Minority Report", where they warehouse the condemned, unconscious for as long as their normal life would be.  If, during that time, innocence is proven, bippity boppity, wake them up and they can go home with some nice parting gifts from the state. If they reach 90 years without reprieve...uh-oh...trash compactor for grampa freezer burn.
 
2014-01-17 11:18:16 PM

acohn: fusillade762: I've never understood why they don't just kill them with a big honking shot of morphine...

Or an insulin overdose.


That guy executed earlier this week in Ohio was given a big honking shot of morphine and a couple handfuls of benzos.
 
2014-01-17 11:21:11 PM

Almost Everybody Poops: I see you have no response TheWhoppah, you're either a coward or refuse to accept that innocent people have been executed.


I don't think he is maintaining that no one innocent has been executed or that none ever will. He's not retarded, as far as I can tell, and one would have to be to maintain that.
I think he was just argung about some specific cases.
 
2014-01-17 11:21:18 PM
I have to say the blood lust in this thread is a bit disturbing. o.o You can call it justice as many times as you want, but admit you guys would get a sort of sick satisfaction. Especially those of you calling for an eye for an eye as fair punishment.

Its proven that the death penalty is more expensive, doesn't deter such crimes, but eh there is nothing rational about the death penalty. Its taking a life and calling it justice, and then people feeling good that someone is dead.
 
2014-01-17 11:21:27 PM

bbfreak: chasd00: Iirc firing squads went away out of concern for the mental health of the squad not the condemned. Executioners, who are actually just regular working stiffs, end up with serious mental issues over time.

First let me say that I am strictly against the death penalty, but there is absolutely no reason why you need human executioners so to speak. Or at least someone who actually pulls a trigger. Its 2014, and a robotic gun would be a fairly easy to engineer. Accurate, no mental health issues to address and I'd imagine it'd be more cost effective since robots don't need a health plan. Just a thought.


Someone still has to press the button to send the fire command to the robot. How is that different?
 
2014-01-17 11:22:04 PM

TheWhoppah: gfid: It's usually just the death penalty cases that get the attetion.

The reason that Life Without Parole is cheaper than the Death Penalty is that we spend a million dollars on lawyers and investigators and forensic labs and psychologist and the like to make sure we've got the right guy and that he really does deserve to die and that he poses a continuing threat if not executed.  For LWOP we just give them a public defender and then throw away the key.  There are certainly many many TIMES as many innocents serving LWOP parole than on death row.  The system guarantees that.


This plus people doing life murder non viloent inmates in for like dealing pot or cheating on taxes in prison. More inmates are murdered by other inmates in our prison system than are executed by the state

So even if every last person executed by the state was innocent more people innocent of murder are killed by lifers in prison than are killed by the state.
 
2014-01-17 11:22:32 PM

jso2897: Almost Everybody Poops: I see you have no response TheWhoppah, you're either a coward or refuse to accept that innocent people have been executed.

I don't think he is maintaining that no one innocent has been executed or that none ever will. He's not retarded, as far as I can tell, and one would have to be to maintain that.
I think he was just argung about some specific cases.


Exhibit A:

TheWhoppah: jso2897: tinfoil-hat maggie : Um, no knowing how the US is well we'll just start falsely accusing people to keep up the flow of death penalty reality TV..

What makes you think that isn't happening already? Exhibit A: Texas.

Name one person in Texas that was executed after being falsely accused.  It doesn't even have to be for a reality show.

 
2014-01-17 11:23:21 PM

TheWhoppah: acohn: fusillade762: I've never understood why they don't just kill them with a big honking shot of morphine...

Or an insulin overdose.

That guy executed earlier this week in Ohio was given a big honking shot of morphine and a couple handfuls of benzos.


That is the preferred method for end of life in hospice and elderly care. I did delivery for a pharmacy for a stretch and when someone is certainly near the end they will often times be ordered a "death kit" (that's what the pharmacist called it because they were on prescribed weeks before someone inevitably passed) which was a box of highly concentrated morphine and a number of other 'comforting' sedatives and painkillers so that terminally ill people can pass in peace.
 
2014-01-17 11:23:51 PM

TheWhoppah: JosephFinn: TheWhoppah: Everyone always says Willingham but that bastard was guilty as sin.

That would be (charitably) incorrect.  More realistically, it's a farking lie and Willingham was murdered.

Lets consider Willingham's own explanation for what happened:  I was napping in the back room with Amber when she woke me up yelling about the smoke so I got up and left out the front door.

Three year old Amber's body was found under the covers in the back bedroom.  The path from the back bedroom to the front door would have taken him past the room where the twin infants were sleeping.  Their bodies were found in that room.

So, even if you ignore the half-dozen empty bottles of lighter fluid and the neighbors that reported seeing him outside acting funny peeking in the windows and doors BEFORE any smoke came out of the house... even if you ignore the testimony of the fire investigators that spent 3 days going through the rubble.  Even if you take Willingham's explanation as 100% gospel truth... then he just walked out and left his three kids to die in a fire without even trying to save them... one of whom was in the same room with him and alerted him to the smoke.  The jury obviously didn't believe him and neither should you... but even if you do and you are right .... well I still think he was a monster who deserved a lot worse than lethal injection.  Oh, and those fire reports were not debunked exactly.  They found almost two dozen "clues of arson" that, at the time, it was believed that those clues ONLY appeared in arson fires.  We now know that some of them can sometimes appear in non-arson fires too.  Still, there was plenty of forensic evidence to support the arson conviction even if some of those clues were only 90% likely causes instead of 100%.  What are the chances of over dozen 10% chances all going that way?  The prosecution theory was that he killed his three kids to spite his wife.  His last words were to her, "fark You, biatch!"


That would be nice, if the version you have there was anything even close to the accounts of what happened that night and later on.
 
2014-01-17 11:24:05 PM
The best solution...

img.fark.net

Plus bonus, we'd finally be able to go without hearing New Yorkers talk about how awesome New York City is.
 
2014-01-17 11:24:29 PM

wildcardjack: High velocity bullet to the head, turning the brain to jam, happens faster than can be perceived by the brain in question. Thus we know it is painless. The chemical route was iffy, couldn't say with veracity the death was painless.


We don't want painless. We want bloodless. We don't want to admit we're killing someone.
 
2014-01-17 11:24:31 PM

untaken_name: I'm okay with this, if the jury that convicts the defendant becomes the firing squad. Then jurors might actually take their responsibility over the life and death of others seriously.


What if they've never fired a gun?  Are you OK with them hitting a surface off of which the bullet can ricochet?
 
2014-01-17 11:25:23 PM
Here's the problem:

We've just had a big debate in CA about compassionate release for elderly inmates and resentencing for juveniles who got life without parole who have been resentenced to life WITH parole. The op-ed comments, almost without exception, were about the victims' families: "Why should those [insert epithet here] be allowed to have compassion or hope, when they displayed none towards their victims?"

In one case, the man was in his 80's, dying of terminal cancer, and the debate was whether he should be allowed to die at home (he did not make it). In the second, the kid had been an accomplice to a robbery/murder at age 17, and got life without; he's now in his 30's and a model prisoner and was resentenced to life with on new constitutional grounds. And yet in both cases, the hue&cry was about how unfair it was to the FAMILIES OF THE VICTIMS that these men get any kind of consideration.

Proving merely that, in capital cases, it is not about deterrence, costs, or benefit to society; it's about retribution for the families of the victims. An 80-year old cancer patient who killed his victim decades ago--nobody writing in about that case knew or cared one iota about the family until it looked like the killer might get out; then suddenly it was all about "why should he get the compassion he didn't show his victim?" A 17-year old kid helped murder a woman and has spent his young adulthood paying for that crime--nobody writing in gave a rat's ass about the victim's family until he was given the option of MAYBE getting out of prison someday. Then suddenly they are pitiful victims themselves, and he's a cold heartless thug who deserves to rot in prison.

Capital cases are about vengeance for the families. If that's our motive, fine; but let's stop pretending it's about anything else. It's not about cost-effectiveness, or we would simply imprison them (it's proven to be cheaper). It's not about deterrence or we would abandon execution completely (it's been proven not to be any kind of deterrent). It's not even about taking dangerous elements out of society (or we would execute all of them because life without is stupid if that's the goal). It's about making the families and friends of the victims feel better, and society by proxy. It is, in fact, about vengeance. So why pretend it's anything else? Let's admit it and move on.
 
2014-01-17 11:25:32 PM

Oldiron_79: TheWhoppah: gfid: It's usually just the death penalty cases that get the attetion.

The reason that Life Without Parole is cheaper than the Death Penalty is that we spend a million dollars on lawyers and investigators and forensic labs and psychologist and the like to make sure we've got the right guy and that he really does deserve to die and that he poses a continuing threat if not executed.  For LWOP we just give them a public defender and then throw away the key.  There are certainly many many TIMES as many innocents serving LWOP parole than on death row.  The system guarantees that.

This plus people doing life murder non viloent inmates in for like dealing pot or cheating on taxes in prison. More inmates are murdered by other inmates in our prison system than are executed by the state

So even if every last person executed by the state was innocent more people innocent of murder are killed by lifers in prison than are killed by the state.


More death row inmates die of old age than are executed by the state. More death row inmates fatally overdose on illicitly obtained drugs than are executed by the state. Death Row seem to mainly be a record company.
 
2014-01-17 11:27:35 PM

doglover: And above either of those, I'd go for decapitation by sword.


You know that it sometimes took them several tries to get it right, don'y you?
 
2014-01-17 11:28:13 PM

Mugato: The number of sociopaths in this thread is somewhat unnerving.


Hybristophilia.
 
2014-01-17 11:29:06 PM

Almost Everybody Poops: jso2897: Almost Everybody Poops: I see you have no response TheWhoppah, you're either a coward or refuse to accept that innocent people have been executed.

I don't think he is maintaining that no one innocent has been executed or that none ever will. He's not retarded, as far as I can tell, and one would have to be to maintain that.
I think he was just argung about some specific cases.

Exhibit A:

TheWhoppah: jso2897: tinfoil-hat maggie : Um, no knowing how the US is well we'll just start falsely accusing people to keep up the flow of death penalty reality TV..

What makes you think that isn't happening already? Exhibit A: Texas.

Name one person in Texas that was executed after being falsely accused.  It doesn't even have to be for a reality show.


Well, that was argumentative, and he can defend it if he wants - but I still haven't heard him assert that he doesn't think any innocent people ever have or will get executed. And, him having given no overt signs of being an utter imbecile, I am not prepared to conclude that he believes that.
 
2014-01-17 11:29:21 PM
What happened to good old "death by your inmate"?
While they wait for their time, let them kill these whos time has come. Cheap and effective. Ecological. Humane.
/ I am jocking, of course.
//On another hand, why not?
 
2014-01-17 11:30:37 PM

ransack.: bbfreak: chasd00: Iirc firing squads went away out of concern for the mental health of the squad not the condemned. Executioners, who are actually just regular working stiffs, end up with serious mental issues over time.

First let me say that I am strictly against the death penalty, but there is absolutely no reason why you need human executioners so to speak. Or at least someone who actually pulls a trigger. Its 2014, and a robotic gun would be a fairly easy to engineer. Accurate, no mental health issues to address and I'd imagine it'd be more cost effective since robots don't need a health plan. Just a thought.

Someone still has to press the button to send the fire command to the robot. How is that different?


Three reasons. 1: At least its more accurate than a human, humans can fark up. 2: Not necessarily, you can automate the process easily. A robot car can drive it self on mars and a gun in comparison is a very simple thing. Especially a robotic gun. The biggest problem would be the comfort zone in giving a robot that ability, but there are numerous safety features you could build in to the robot gun.

3: You could have one switch to prime the weapon, and a safety pin on the weapon it self, pull the pin and then the guard walks away. Once the room is cleared of everyone but the prisoner, a button/switch is activated that powers up the weapon. Anyway, really it would be a very simple matter. There would be numerous ways to automate the process and safely.

Though if you aren't comfortable with that. You can introduce three humans to the equation. Three people go into a room, they all press a button and neither of them knows which one actually pushed the button to kill the prisoner.
 
2014-01-17 11:34:13 PM

greylion: What happened to good old "death by your inmate"?
While they wait for their time, let them kill these whos time has come. Cheap and effective. Ecological. Humane.
/ I am jocking, of course.
//On another hand, why not?


If the death penalty was an available option in Wisconsin, Jeffrey Dahmer would probably still be alive so your point has merit.
 
2014-01-17 11:34:22 PM

jso2897: Almost Everybody Poops: jso2897: Almost Everybody Poops: I see you have no response TheWhoppah, you're either a coward or refuse to accept that innocent people have been executed.

I don't think he is maintaining that no one innocent has been executed or that none ever will. He's not retarded, as far as I can tell, and one would have to be to maintain that.
I think he was just argung about some specific cases.

Exhibit A:

TheWhoppah: jso2897: tinfoil-hat maggie : Um, no knowing how the US is well we'll just start falsely accusing people to keep up the flow of death penalty reality TV..

What makes you think that isn't happening already? Exhibit A: Texas.

Name one person in Texas that was executed after being falsely accused.  It doesn't even have to be for a reality show.

Well, that was argumentative, and he can defend it if he wants - but I still haven't heard him assert that he doesn't think any innocent people ever have or will get executed. And, him having given no overt signs of being an utter imbecile, I am not prepared to conclude that he believes that.


Agreed, that's why I gave him a chance to defend himself.  However, he chose to flee rather than back up his assertion.
 
2014-01-17 11:35:04 PM
Just do it the old fashioned way circa 500-1500ev only make it public, on TV, use really good, expensive microphones for audio quality. Maybe a laugh track to amuse whichever party is in control. Heck, sample the shiat for techno unza-unza. Just bring your own filter masks if attending live because it can be a bit stinky.
 
2014-01-17 11:37:05 PM

bbfreak: I have to say the blood lust in this thread is a bit disturbing. o.o You can call it justice as many times as you want, but admit you guys would get a sort of sick satisfaction. Especially those of you calling for an eye for an eye as fair punishment.

Its proven that the death penalty is more expensive, doesn't deter such crimes, but eh there is nothing rational about the death penalty. Its taking a life and calling it justice, and then people feeling good that someone is dead.


The sick satisfaction of seeing people like this never able to kill again?:

1) Police: Man Who Killed 5 In MN Kills Again Behind Bars

2) John Charles McCluskey faces the death penalty after being found guilty of 20 counts in the shooting deaths of Gary and Linda Haas. McCluskey was one of three inmates, all convicted killers, who escaped from a contract prison in Kingman, Ariz

Okay.

The sick satisfaction of seeing the murder rate go down as executions go up?

Okay.
 
2014-01-17 11:37:25 PM

TheWhoppah: JosephFinn: TheWhoppah: Everyone always says Willingham but that bastard was guilty as sin.

That would be (charitably) incorrect.  More realistically, it's a farking lie and Willingham was murdered.

Lets consider Willingham's own explanation for what happened:  I was napping in the back room with Amber when she woke me up yelling about the smoke so I got up and left out the front door.

Three year old Amber's body was found under the covers in the back bedroom.  The path from the back bedroom to the front door would have taken him past the room where the twin infants were sleeping.  Their bodies were found in that room.

So, even if you ignore the half-dozen empty bottles of lighter fluid and the neighbors that reported seeing him outside acting funny peeking in the windows and doors BEFORE any smoke came out of the house... even if you ignore the testimony of the fire investigators that spent 3 days going through the rubble.  Even if you take Willingham's explanation as 100% gospel truth... then he just walked out and left his three kids to die in a fire without even trying to save them... one of whom was in the same room with him and alerted him to the smoke.  The jury obviously didn't believe him and neither should you... but even if you do and you are right .... well I still think he was a monster who deserved a lot worse than lethal injection.  Oh, and those fire reports were not debunked exactly.  They found almost two dozen "clues of arson" that, at the time, it was believed that those clues ONLY appeared in arson fires.  We now know that some of them can sometimes appear in non-arson fires too.  Still, there was plenty of forensic evidence to support the arson conviction even if some of those clues were only 90% likely causes instead of 100%.  What are the chances of over dozen 10% chances all going that way?  The prosecution theory was that he killed his three kids to spite his wife.  His last words were to her, "fark You, biatch!"


I'm not as sure about that case as you are.  I think it was Frontline that I watched (can't remember for sure).  There were some serious questions raised and that fire investigator might not have been as smart as he claimed to be.

I remain unconvinced of his guilt.  I'm not convinced he's not guilty, but that's a far cry from being ready to execute someone.

I'm not sure when our court system changed from "beyond a reasonable doubt" to " plenty of forensic evidence".

If you have a source for different documentary material that makes him appear really guilty, I'd take a look at it.
 
2014-01-17 11:37:42 PM

Gyrfalcon: Here's the problem:

We've just had a big debate in CA about compassionate release for elderly inmates and resentencing for juveniles who got life without parole who have been resentenced to life WITH parole. The op-ed comments, almost without exception, were about the victims' families: "Why should those [insert epithet here] be allowed to have compassion or hope, when they displayed none towards their victims?"

In one case, the man was in his 80's, dying of terminal cancer, and the debate was whether he should be allowed to die at home (he did not make it). In the second, the kid had been an accomplice to a robbery/murder at age 17, and got life without; he's now in his 30's and a model prisoner and was resentenced to life with on new constitutional grounds. And yet in both cases, the hue&cry was about how unfair it was to the FAMILIES OF THE VICTIMS that these men get any kind of consideration.

Proving merely that, in capital cases, it is not about deterrence, costs, or benefit to society; it's about retribution for the families of the victims. An 80-year old cancer patient who killed his victim decades ago--nobody writing in about that case knew or cared one iota about the family until it looked like the killer might get out; then suddenly it was all about "why should he get the compassion he didn't show his victim?" A 17-year old kid helped murder a woman and has spent his young adulthood paying for that crime--nobody writing in gave a rat's ass about the victim's family until he was given the option of MAYBE getting out of prison someday. Then suddenly they are pitiful victims themselves, and he's a cold heartless thug who deserves to rot in prison.

Capital cases are about vengeance for the families. If that's our motive, fine; but let's stop pretending it's about anything else. It's not about cost-effectiveness, or we would simply imprison them (it's proven to be cheaper). It's not about deterrence or we would abandon execution completely (it's been proven ...


That's my problem with this. I don't have any huge problem with the death penalty. It's an anachronism, but far from the only one we entertain in this country. It doesn't bother me that we do it, or even that we do it for the reasons that we do it.
It just bugs me that we have to be so Goddamned phoney and self-deluded and dishonest about it.
Let's call it what it is: we are killing people. We are killing them because they are bad, and we hate them. Let's quit trying to make some kind of f**king teaparty or cotillion ball out of it.
 
2014-01-17 11:38:14 PM
Helium should be an option. Knock em out and replace their oxygen with helium.

And for those who are asking why we cant just shoot them up with morphine, you have to remember that as a scheduled substance it can only be used in certain circumstances. That is on the Feds.
 
2014-01-17 11:41:23 PM

cman: Helium should be an option. Knock em out and replace their oxygen with helium.

And for those who are asking why we cant just shoot them up with morphine, you have to remember that as a scheduled substance it can only be used in certain circumstances. That is on the Feds.


Helium is too expensive and short of supply for that.
 
2014-01-17 11:41:42 PM
@JosephFinn - The NewYorker article on the Willingham case was debunked almost as soon as it was written.  The Beylor report does not even support the conclusions drawn from it in that sorry expose.  My respect for the New Yorker dropped a few notches after reading that garbage.  Did you know that Willingham had zero smoke inhalation and that he asked the firemen to move their equipment so he could move his car back away from the blaze so it wouldn'tscorch the paint job.... while his three children were inside burning to death?  Obviously wrongfully convicted.  The half-dozen empty bottles of charcoal lighter were just a coincidence.  Sure.
 
2014-01-17 11:43:29 PM

Almost Everybody Poops: cman: Helium should be an option. Knock em out and replace their oxygen with helium.

And for those who are asking why we cant just shoot them up with morphine, you have to remember that as a scheduled substance it can only be used in certain circumstances. That is on the Feds.

Helium is too expensive and short of supply for that.


And anyway, what if he woke up and started talking in that high voice and everybody cracked up laughing? That would make it kind of awkward.
 
2014-01-17 11:43:42 PM
How about ending the death penalty?  It is state enacted revenge.  Revenge is not moral.
 
2014-01-17 11:43:52 PM
What I find sick is the relentless advocacy for murderers. So this piece of sh•t snorted a few times during his execution? Took a long time? Poor thing. I wonder what sounds his pregnant victim made as she was being stabbed to death.
 
2014-01-17 11:44:02 PM

TheWhoppah: @JosephFinn - The NewYorker article on the Willingham case was debunked almost as soon as it was written.  The Beylor report does not even support the conclusions drawn from it in that sorry expose.  My respect for the New Yorker dropped a few notches after reading that garbage.  Did you know that Willingham had zero smoke inhalation and that he asked the firemen to move their equipment so he could move his car back away from the blaze so it wouldn'tscorch the paint job.... while his three children were inside burning to death?  Obviously wrongfully convicted.  The half-dozen empty bottles of charcoal lighter were just a coincidence.  Sure.


If you're not going to refute the other accusations in the wikipedia article I cited I'm just gonna assume you got nothing.
 
2014-01-17 11:44:45 PM

jso2897: Almost Everybody Poops: cman: Helium should be an option. Knock em out and replace their oxygen with helium.

And for those who are asking why we cant just shoot them up with morphine, you have to remember that as a scheduled substance it can only be used in certain circumstances. That is on the Feds.

Helium is too expensive and short of supply for that.

And anyway, what if he woke up and started talking in that high voice and everybody cracked up laughing? That would make it kind of awkward.


Dunno about that, there's nothing more hysterical than dying while people are laughing at you.
 
2014-01-17 11:45:00 PM

Gyrfalcon: in capital cases, it is not about deterrence, costs, or benefit to society; it's about retribution for the families of the victims.


As it should be.  Vengeance is the foundation of justice.  Its about the survivors and its about showing our collective disgust with the killers.
 
2014-01-17 11:45:02 PM
If death row inmates got to choose their own method of execution like the guy in that Monty Python skit, I wonder how many would make the same choice he did: being chased through town by a screaming army of beautiful, naked women until they finally chase him over the edge of a cliff.
 
2014-01-17 11:45:19 PM

rev. dave: How about ending the death penalty?  It is state enacted revenge.  Revenge is not moral.


Now, that's just crazy talk.
 
2014-01-17 11:46:35 PM

Almost Everybody Poops: TheWhoppah: @JosephFinn - The NewYorker article on the Willingham case was debunked almost as soon as it was written.  The Beylor report does not even support the conclusions drawn from it in that sorry expose.  My respect for the New Yorker dropped a few notches after reading that garbage.  Did you know that Willingham had zero smoke inhalation and that he asked the firemen to move their equipment so he could move his car back away from the blaze so it wouldn'tscorch the paint job.... while his three children were inside burning to death?  Obviously wrongfully convicted.  The half-dozen empty bottles of charcoal lighter were just a coincidence.  Sure.

If you're not going to refute the other accusations in the wikipedia article I cited I'm just gonna assume you got nothing.


I told you anything that starts with the bullshiat Willingham innocence story is not worthy of discussion.
 
2014-01-17 11:49:02 PM
To hell with the firing squad.  The point of the firing squad is that you're not supposed to know who fired the fatal bullet because one of the guns is loaded with a blank.  It is my view that the condemned should be put to death with a single bullet fired by the governor of the state.  If you can't take personal responsibility for killing someone, you shouldn't do it.  And if the condemned is later exonerated, the governor should suffer the same fate.
 
2014-01-17 11:49:08 PM

TheWhoppah: Almost Everybody Poops: TheWhoppah: @JosephFinn - The NewYorker article on the Willingham case was debunked almost as soon as it was written.  The Beylor report does not even support the conclusions drawn from it in that sorry expose.  My respect for the New Yorker dropped a few notches after reading that garbage.  Did you know that Willingham had zero smoke inhalation and that he asked the firemen to move their equipment so he could move his car back away from the blaze so it wouldn'tscorch the paint job.... while his three children were inside burning to death?  Obviously wrongfully convicted.  The half-dozen empty bottles of charcoal lighter were just a coincidence.  Sure.

If you're not going to refute the other accusations in the wikipedia article I cited I'm just gonna assume you got nothing.

I told you anything that starts with the bullshiat Willingham innocence story is not worthy of discussion.


What if you, i dunno, ignored that and read further to other, completely unrelated cases?  Should I just cite the cited sources or are you too afraid to admit you're wrong?
 
2014-01-17 11:49:24 PM
Here in Wisconsin there's been no capital punishment, per the state constitution, since statehood in 1848. Seems to be working out fine, even Republicans don't try to instate it. It's one of those issues that once you finally get over the hump, so to speak, there's very rarely any going back. The NH legislature is debating abolition now, but even then they haven't executed anybody since 1939. The fact that we have so many examples of American states, nevermind other Western nations, with no death penalty should cut heavily against the argument that it is any sort of necessity.
 
2014-01-17 11:50:09 PM

jso2897: rev. dave: How about ending the death penalty?  It is state enacted revenge.  Revenge is not moral.

Now, that's just crazy talk.


Bunch of bloodthirsty Farkers need to chill out some.
 
2014-01-17 11:51:05 PM

acohn: fusillade762: I've never understood why they don't just kill them with a big honking shot of morphine...

Or an insulin overdose.



As a Type I diabetic, let me just say this is one of the most cruel, painful deaths I can imagine.
 
2014-01-17 11:51:35 PM

WraithSama: If death row inmates got to choose their own method of execution like the guy in that Monty Python skit, I wonder how many would make the same choice he did: being chased through town by a screaming army of beautiful, naked women until they finally chase him over the edge of a cliff.


Still can't figure out why he was running..
 
2014-01-17 11:52:00 PM

WraithSama: If death row inmates got to choose their own method of execution like the guy in that Monty Python skit, I wonder how many would make the same choice he did: being chased through town by a screaming army of beautiful, naked women until they finally chase him over the edge of a cliff.


They were topless, not naked. And they had crash helmets. That was the nice way of going out, not the awesome way....friggin' prudes.
 
2014-01-17 11:52:02 PM

jso2897: rev. dave: How about ending the death penalty?  It is state enacted revenge.  Revenge is not moral.

Now, that's just crazy talk.


Yes it is.

Back in the good old days, a horse thief was hung. There were very few horse thieves. I think we should do the same for car jackers.  Jack a car .... you die.

God I love Texas.

/half ass trolling.
//may have a point.
///death is a wonderful deterrent.
 
2014-01-17 11:52:58 PM

TheWhoppah: Almost Everybody Poops: TheWhoppah: @JosephFinn - The NewYorker article on the Willingham case was debunked almost as soon as it was written.  The Beylor report does not even support the conclusions drawn from it in that sorry expose.  My respect for the New Yorker dropped a few notches after reading that garbage.  Did you know that Willingham had zero smoke inhalation and that he asked the firemen to move their equipment so he could move his car back away from the blaze so it wouldn'tscorch the paint job.... while his three children were inside burning to death?  Obviously wrongfully convicted.  The half-dozen empty bottles of charcoal lighter were just a coincidence.  Sure.

If you're not going to refute the other accusations in the wikipedia article I cited I'm just gonna assume you got nothing.

I told you anything that starts with the bullshiat Willingham innocence story is not worthy of discussion.


Seriously, you said to give "one" example of an innocent person being executed in Texas, I gave you a source and you were like "okay, yeah, but that's kinda disputed". I then give you link to a number of other innocent executions and you're all like "but I didn't agree with the first one! which you cited in your original post! therefore INVALID!"

Man up and admit your wrong or at least try to defend your argument.
 
2014-01-17 11:53:07 PM

slayer199: Hey, it worked for Gary Gilmore.


Oddly enough, exactly 37 years ago today.
 
Displayed 50 of 569 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report